L
Lampo
Guest
The denomination that you belong to today; what was the name of it in the year 1492 AD?
- Status
A
awantz
Guest
I agree with everything you say Martin Luther says.
R
Righteousone
Guest
Really? Cuz he also says that the Epistle of St. James was an “Epistle of Straw”…do you agree with that also?
M
mark_a
Guest
Hello Jimmy B,
I haven’t been through all the posts on this thread, so please forgive if . . . . .
But did you know that Martin Luther thought that contraception was pure evil?
touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f
catholic.com/radio/event.php?calendar=1&category=0&event=4415&date=2006-12-29
P
Protestant101
Guest
I think you are more closely imitating the Joker, not Batman or Robin…what did you say you want to “bring us closer to?”Hello again bengal-fan,
You know what I like about you…………everything, well almost everything. Maybe we can team up like Batman and Robin and can work together to bring some of these Christians here closer to the truth, or at least to an agreement on the issues that you and I agree. :hug3:
Let’s see;
I’ll even let you be Batman, how about it? :bounce:
- The “Real Presence” of Jesus in the Eucharist (check)
- Confession to a priest (check)
- Mary is in heaven and “holds a place of significance there” (check)
Here is your chance to “succeed”, Please try again, Thank You!
S
SiempreFiel
Guest
The difference between the papacy in the early Christian Church and the modern papacy is analogous to the difference between the acorn and the oak tree!!
The pope has always been infallible when declaring dogma and he has always been the Supreme Shepherd of God’s militant church!!!
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Don’t be so keen to be irreverent to reality here. If Mary had not consented to the incarnation Jesus would not have been able to do anything through a channel of freewill without God abusing and brutalizing us to save us against our consent. Comprehende?Couple it with the co-redemptrix doctrine and it infers, Jesus couldn’t do it with the help of his mother.
James
B
Bastoune
Guest
Well, even “nearly every protestant” is maybe an exaggeration… the problem with using the term “Protestant” is you never know what that stands for. In fact, I know several Protestants (who don’t even consider themselves “Protestants” because their denominations or non-denominations didn’t split from the Catholic Church – they split from someone else!) who don’t know if Mary is in Heaven or not, since the Gospels record that the family of Christ said Jesus was “out of His mind.” So Mary maybe wasn’t saved (of course, given all the other verses about her that is hard to believe – in fact, in flies right in the face of the woman who followed her son everywhere, was present at every important moment of His life, and “treasured all these things in her heart” – as her soul would be pierced by a sword as well.).
“Always reforming” usually means “always contradicting.” All Protestant groups in existence before 1929 believed contraception was sinful. After the Anglicans changed their mind (suprise, surprise – the Church was founded by a gluttonous egomaniac who wanted to marry his mistress), so did just about everyone else follow. So is it right or wrong? So you were teaching error all this time? Wasn’t the Bible sufficiently clear to you?
Same thing with neo-Calvinists – they believe Calvin “erred” in believing (ardently) in the necessity of infant baptism.
Anabaptists denied infant baptism and “sola fide” so they split from Luther. What could Luther do? He set the ball rolling with his view that “anyone” could interpret the Sacred Scriptures (cf. 2 Peter 1:20; 3:16).
chnetwork.org/journals/authority/authority_4.htm
The Churches of Christ denomination have now changed their position on Hell – they believe it is temporal, not eternal. You go to Hell and will eventually be “destroyed” in it, you won’t suffer forever. This was one minor thing that propelled a friend of mine, a CoC pastor, to become Catholic – well, at first at least to leave the CoC.
“Constantly seeking the truth”? But why “seek” when the Lord Jesus Himself said to the Church that He would lead the Church in to “all truth”? Just follow Him!!!
Protestants don’t have any real authority to discipline or enforce doctrine. History shows that once someone disagrees they just make their own church. Ta-da! But the Catholic Church doesn’t have “difficult verses” – we’ve got the whole Bible which we embrace, and know with certainty that God has given us not only Sacred Scriptures to guide us, but a teaching authority to properly teach them.
M
Mickey
Guest
So the modern innovations of the papacy are more accurate than the early Christian Church? I think not. The deepest wells have the clearest water.
Only since about 1870.
S
Shanisaurus
Guest
You know, even though I’m a Catholic myself I’ve always been debating about some teachings of the Catholic church. And the points brought up by East Anglican in Page 5 seem to cover many of them. You see…
The idea of Mary being the co-redemptrix sounds like blasphemy to me - sharing the glory due to God (and JESUS IS GOD!) with another person, however “holy”!?! CentralFLJames said “If Mary had not consented to the incarnation Jesus would not have been able to do anything through a channel of freewill without God abusing and brutalizing us to save us against our consent.” See, that’s assuming that we can understang what all God can do! We can’t, which means that we can’t be so sure that God wouldn’t have been able to give us salvation if Mary hadn’t agreed to the plan.
Yup. I do believe it’s written in Ephesians 2:8-9 “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.” And if anyone says that it gives permission to go on sinning because we have received the saving Grace, just read John 14:12 - Jesus said “I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing.” That covers the fact that we can’t go on sinning and believe that we will still go to heaven when we die. Besides, Romans 3:20 says “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.” So what I don’t get is why isn’t honest repentance when we do slip up and sin (I admit, I’m not perfect and I do sin no matter how I try not to!) addressed to God in our prayer enough?
I’m still not convinced of purgatory. The Bible verses that are quoted to support it sounds just too loose to me. They don’t give any solid view into whether there is purgatory or not! Especially if you take the context of the chapter and not just the verse.
EXACTLY!!! Why pray through Mary or Saints! If by Jesus’ death and resurrection we have been given the priviledge of calling God, “Father”, why do we need to pray through third parties?
I personally believe that the body and blood of Jesus is present in the bread and wine together with the bread and wine. Where is it written that it turns solely to flesh and blood?
True. I do agree that there are many “protestant” churches that hold beliefs that go against Scriptural teaching. But does that mean ALL Protestant churches teach dross? I think we Catholics need to learn to get off the Lord’s judgement chair - because judgement is His. And the Bible says in Romans 3:23 that “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. So who made you all so righteous, my Catholic brothers and sisters?
As a reply to this ChristianRoots had written on page 5 of this thread, “The reason why there were no written references to these beliefs in early Church history was because no one was challenging them at that time. Only when there was a challenge to a particular belief did the Church feel compelled to define it in more dogmatic terms.” If that’s so, why does the Catholic Church base beliefs such as the Assumption of Mary on treatises like the “De Obitu S. Dominae”? Where did that come from? And please don’t try to fly that “just because it’s not written in the Bible doesn’t mean it didn’t happen” argument. If you believed that you have to agree to the DaVinci theory about Jesus and Mary Magdalene being married (I mean according to that argument, just because it’s not written in the Bible that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married doesn’t mean that they weren’t either, does it?)
The idea of Mary being the co-redemptrix sounds like blasphemy to me - sharing the glory due to God (and JESUS IS GOD!) with another person, however “holy”!?! CentralFLJames said “If Mary had not consented to the incarnation Jesus would not have been able to do anything through a channel of freewill without God abusing and brutalizing us to save us against our consent.” See, that’s assuming that we can understang what all God can do! We can’t, which means that we can’t be so sure that God wouldn’t have been able to give us salvation if Mary hadn’t agreed to the plan.
C
climer97007
Guest
You are forgetting to mention that for the first 1,000 years of Christendom, that the Orthodox DID accept the Pope’s authority. Some people fail to consider the full truth, just the part that makes them feel righteous in their own hearts.
You are also failing to consider that there can be a difference in the manner that Papal authority is respected.
This news article articulates this very well:
zenit.org/article-21815?l=english
I quote:
"“We came to the concept that the Church is realized on three levels: the local level, that is, the diocese with the bishop; the regional level, that is, the metropolitan or patriarchate; and the universal level. And on every level we have a tension between authority – bishop, patriarch, and the ‘protos,’ Greek for primate, that is, ‘the first of the bishops’ – and the principle of synodality, synodal structures.”
"But the real breakthrough, he said, was that “the Orthodox agreed to speak about the universal level – because before there were some who denied that there could even be institutional structures on the universal level. The second point is that we agreed that at the universal level there is a primate. It was clear that there is only one candidate for this post, that is the Bishop of Rome, because according to the old order – ‘taxis’ in Greek – of the Church of the first millennium the see of Rome is the first among them. Many problems remain to be resolved, but we have laid a foundation upon which we can build.”
I can see from this that God’s ways are not our ways. This is not a democratic viewpoint of opinion. It is not a personality contest. It is not a scientific view of testable theories. It is not a monarchy, dictatorship or presidency. It is about being a slave to Christ and servant to the Universal Church.
When Christians truly humble themselves, they can finally begin to see their proper place of service within the body, not apart from it, or in contest with Him whom they should rightly serve.
Gene
M
Mickey
Guest
The undivided Church never looked to the bishop of Rome as the infallible supreme pontiff—never!
L
LutheranDK
Guest
Yes, I knew all of those things. And apart from the last one abou Mary, I believe all of them as well.
And about Mary - there are two things here:
1: Luther was, as he himself would have admitted freely, but a man and could err. He did so on this matter. There is no Scriptural support for the idea.
2: Please notice Luther’s point that it is not something that can be an article of faith.
And it should ALSO be noted that Luther later renounced the “veneration” of Mary and the “saints”.
Finally: Martin Luther is NOT the “pope” of Protestant churches, not even the one which, in defiance of his own wishes, bears his name. Therefore - Protestant churches are not bound by his views, which is why the “look at Luther’s writings against the Jews”-argument against Protestant churches is invalid. No man can speak ex cathedra. Not Luther, not anyone.
E
East_Anglican
Guest
10By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.
This pasage is talking about dead works. That which is not built on Christ will be destroyed. Our works are as filthy rags. As we grow in Christ our dead works are burnt away and only hat is built on him shall remain. To say this is refering to purgatory is a very long stretch.
L
LutheranDK
Guest
“Why aren’t “Protestants” as eager to openly argue their own differences with one another, as they are with the Roman Catholic Church, or Catholics”Hello bengal_fan, thank you for your post. You are correct and since the “Protestant” break from Catholicism, “Protestants” are still today “constantly trying to seek the truth”.
So, of the estimate 36,000 different non-Catholic Christian religions, to what 'truth" do you subscribe? Moreover, why aren’t the “truths” contained in all the other (36,000) Christian religions the same?
Protestant, “Christian Reform” is nothing more than: many different expressions of a mans desire to have God on his terms, and not on God’s terms.
*If one does not like or disagrees with the “truthes”, doctrine or rule-set of any given, non-Catholic Christian religion; start another religon. *
*That is why there exist so many non-Catholic Christian religions today. Don’t take my word for it, look-up the history of “your” religion (or beliefs), or any non-Catholic Christian religion (or beliefs) and see for yourself. *
Out of everything I posted (post # 1), all you have for me is one “sort of” disagreement.
If what you say is true, why won’t you dispute Martin Luther’s beliefs? It is because, on these issues, he is in agreement with Catholicism?
Why aren’t “Protestants” as eager to openly argue their own differences with one another, as they are with the Roman Catholic Church, or Catholics?
*Please try again, Thank you
Oh, believe me: We are. Luther himself called Zwingli a heretic, because of the latter’s unorthodox views on the Sacraments, and much of Confessio Augustana is written against the Zwinglians and "Schwärmer"s.
The reason many Protestants use much strength to “argue their differences” with the Roman church is the latter’s claim to be the ONLY true church of Christ. A view that has no basis in either the Scriptures or church fathers. Not the Roman church as it exists today. Yes, Cyprian could say “extra ecclesiam nulla salvus”, but by that he did not mean the Roman church as it exists today - because that church was not even in existence at his time.
L
LutheranDK
Guest
Just two words: Documentation, please!
And not just some “I heard it at Sunday school”-theory…
M
Mickey
Guest
I have never seen any documentation of this often told tale.
L
LutheranDK
Guest
NO!
The calls of the Reformation were:
Sola Scriptura
Sola Fide
Sola Gratia
Solus Christus
Soli Deo Gloria
Not “keep on changing!”
Luther is not the pope, no, but he rediscovered truths that the Roman church had done away with, while keeping those Roman beliefs that WERE in accordance with Scripture (although this was a gradual process, as it has been demonstrated that he still had an unnatural high evaluation of Mary in 1522) - among which were infant baptism, Communion, and confession.
The catholics inhere had a field day of that comment (yours), but it is not true.
E
East_Anglican
Guest
I don’t.
I think the mere memorial line is Baptist, but i’m not sure because The Baptists believe he is present in their midst as they gather in his name (Which is scriptural)
Within Protestantism there is
1, Consubstatiation (Real precence within the bread and wine) (Lutheran View) (My view also.)
3, The Reformed view (so like The lutheran View you can’t tell the differance.)
2, Precence in a memorial (Baptist View)
3, Mere Memorial
4, Sacrementarianistism (Merely symbolic)
5, Symbolic Memorial
Then others believe in Transubstatiation.
See we can’t agree on that either.
I think this is what Presbytarians do.
E
East_Anglican
Guest
We give a name to it too.
We call it justification by faith and salvation by grace through faith.
- Status